[Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian

Fri May 4 19:02:00 UTC 2018

I support Brian’s language tying the question to URS rules.

Cyntia King

E:   <mailto:cking at modernip.com> cking at modernip.com

O:  +1 81-ModernIP

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: Gnso-rpm-providers <gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 1:51 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] Examiner Q14 - Revised Wording Proposed by Brian

Hi,

The proposed rephrasing turns it into a completely different question. 

I would request that we keep the question as is and, honestly, I would ask that we stop re-opening this, as it's been argued to death and we reached a compromise already, as reflected in the previous wording.

I, too, was at the GNSO session in San Jose, and I remember "reopening closed discussions" was high on the list of disruptive behaviours that was mentioned. Let's move on, please.

Best,

Michael

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> > wrote:

Dear All, 

Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: 

“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”

Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: 

“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” 

His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).

Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. 

Thank you, 

Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-providers mailing list
Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-providers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180504/4fcdeea2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180504/4fcdeea2/image002.png>